Part of the Global Plot to Expose Moonbats, conspiracy nuts, and anti-Semites, especially the Jewish anti-Semitic variety.
The leftwing Neo-Nazi web magazine Counterpunch has described Plaut thus: "One of the most pernicious writers is Steven Plaut, a man who could be thought of as Israel's Daniel Pipes."

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Soiled Nappies in the Israeli Left over the Anti-Boycott Law

One indication that the "Anti-Boycott" law just passed in Israel isenormously popular is the fact that Bibi Netanyahu is now paradingabout and bragging about having been the law's sponsor. Netanyahudoes not take credit for ANYTHING unless he thinks it has populistappeal.

The Israeli anti-democratic Left of course is in hysterics, screamingthat the law is "fascism." Anything that makes the Left foam at themouth to this extent must be magnificent, almost messianic. The lawallows for the filing of suits against those leftists who organizeboycotts of Israel or parts of Israel, where those believing they havesuffered damages can sue the boycott organizers in court. No doubtamong the very first to be sued will be the ultra-anti-Israel Israeliextremist Neve Gordon.

Haaretz this morning screams from its banner headline that 37 lawprofessors in Israel have denounced the new law. What Haaretz failsto mention is that every one of those 37 is himself or herself aradical leftist, and a few have themselves supported the BDS (boycottdivestment, sanctions) movement of economic aggression against Israel. What Haaretz ALSO fails to note is that among those 37 lawprofessors, not a single one has spoke out against the infringementsof freedom of speech of rabbis and other non-leftists. Not a singleone has defended freedom of speech for anyone other than radicalleftists. In other words, they have long track records of refusal todefend freedom of speech.

Facing ongoing attacks from the global BDS movement, Israel cannot beexpected to support those who work toward its economic destruction.

The anti-boycott legislation recently enacted by the Knesset hasinvoked a firestorm of criticism from many, fulminating against suchlegislation as inherently "undemocratic." Allow me to present analternative viewpoint, dealing with the particulars of the case.

Declaring that boycotts, per se, are illegal might be anti-democratic.However, the legislation in question does not criminalize boycotts.Rather, it provides a balance, allowing those who reject all (evenindirect) contact with Israel to act as they see fit – so long as theydo not harm otherwise binding contracts between parties who thinkotherwise, by inciting for their economic destruction andinternational sanction.

A careful reading of the bill shows that it merely provides possibleprotection, via the creation of a civil tort, for individuals andinstitutions (governmental, cultural and academic) that the Boycott,Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement means to strangle economically– and most undemocratically.

Adherence to democratic principles neither demands nor compels ademocratic country to aid and abet all actions of those whoeffectively deny it the right to self-defense and actively advocatefor its dissolution by any means short of armed assault. Moreover,those who would squash others by economic means should hardly be heardto complain when their intended victim chooses to withhold itseconomic support (in the form of tax breaks, etc.) from them.

Israel's refusal to support its detractors in their declared effortsto undermine the country's economy and blacklist all of its academicand cultural institutions is eminently reasonable, and presents nounfair surprise to those who have consistently exploited democraticrhetoric and institutions in the service of undemocratic ends. Itremains a mysterium tremendum why those who would ostensibly utterlyshun Israel's government and urge others to do likewise are suddenlyupset that they are ineligible to compete for that government'stenders.

Any fair assessment of the Anti-Boycott legislation must take intoconsideration relevant history and context. The BDS movement is nophenomenon sui generis, springing out of thin air. Those with a senseof regional history will recall the Arab boycotts of Jewish andZionist interests , that began well before the modern State of Israelwas recognized in 1948. Indeed, the Arab League boycott remains ineffect today, administered by the Damascus-based Central BoycottOffice (CBO), a specialized bureau of the League.

THE BDS campaign – like the Arab boycott – targets not only Israel andits institutions, but also companies that do business in or withIsrael. A fair read of the BDS movement's website reveals that itsultimate goal, too, is the dismantling of the Jewish state –continuing the all-out assault initiated by Arab armies in 1948 – viaeconomic means. BDS now constitutes at least as great a menace toIsrael and all who associate with it – and to the very notion of freetrade – as the original Arab Boycott.

Anti-Boycott legislation, used to effectively combat such threats, isnothing new in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In 1977, theUS Congress passed legislation criminalizing cooperation with the Arabboycott against Israel for American companies and individuals – andauthorizing the imposition of serious penalties against violators. Thelegislation Israel has enacted is far less onerous for its opponentsthan the US legislation is for its opponents.

Israel's legislation – like America's – appropriately withholdsgovernmental support from those who work toward its economicdestruction. The law also provides a mechanism for Israelis to defendthemselves from the (now) tortious interference with third-partycontracts, when such interference is premised solely on thecontracting parties' connection to Israel, its institutions or areasunder its control.

The wording of the Anti-Boycott measure might be improved upon; surelythe courts (which the BDS campaign targets as institutions of Israel)will be called upon to interpret its scope and meaning, over time.However, the basis of the law is sound.

To sum up: A majority of the Knesset has now agreed that Israel willno longer be complicit in engineering its own demise. The legislaturehas asserted its right to re-level the economic playing field andprovide the country's professors, farmers, merchants, entrepreneurs,hospitals and cultural institutions with some mechanism for defendingthemselves against the tyranny of those who would wreak commercial andsocial havoc upon them.

Moreover, this bill – crafted to allow recourse via legal challenge ofthose who call trans-nationally for trampling Israel's freedoms andthose of its trade partners – is not undemocratic in nature.Unlike the pernicious boycotts it is meant to combat, this billactually serves to promote and maintain democratic ideals, such asfreedom of association, economic substantive due process and – yes –the free exchange of ideas.

The writer practiced law in Boston, Massachusetts. He has served inleadership roles for a variety of Jewish communal organizations and isan alumnus of the Wexner Heritage Foundation. The writer recently tookthe Israeli Bar Exam, and lives in Efrat.

3. From NGO Monitor:

Knesset "Anti-Boycott Law" Analysis and CritiqueOverview

On Monday, July 11, the Knesset passed the "anti-boycott" bill(translated below), which allows "citizens to bring civil suitsagainst persons and organizations that call for economic, cultural oracademic boycotts against Israel, Israeli institutions or regionsunder Israeli control."

As explained below, NGO Monitor does not see this legislation as theappropriate means to combat the BDS movement. However, numerous NGOshave released misleading and false statements about the new law,including the New Israel Fund, which wrongly claimed that the bill"criminalizes freedom of speech," and Gush Shalom, which says the lawis "a death sentence for the right to freedom of expression."

The anti-boycott law does not specifically address boycotts of"settlements;" it is meant to address calls for boycotts anywhere inand against Israel. The global BDS movement targets all of Israel,even within the Green Line, and explicitly rejects the existence ofIsrael within any borders.

The intense public debate and discussion about the new law isindicative of the strength and vibrancy of Israeli democracy, not itsdecline, as many political advocacy NGOs have claimed. These same NGOsare preparing to challenge the new law in the Israeli courts, anothersign of a strong democracy. Furthermore, those NGOs could have lobbiedMKs and presented alternatives, in order to stop the bill. Instead,they spend more time and resources lobbying European Parliaments inopposing Israeli government policy.

In addition, the intense attention from both NGOs and media regardingthe new law again demonstrates an obsession and disproportionate focuson Israel. Human Rights Watch (HRW), for example, within hours of thebill's passage, released a statement attacking the bill. In contrast,it took the organization nearly a week to comment on the April 7murder of an Israeli boy on a school bus targeted by a laser-guidedHamas rocket. And HRW and other NGOs continue to underreport theatrocities in Libya, Syria, North Korea, and other totalitarianregimes in the region.

Main Issues• The "Anti-Boycott bill" (MK Ze'ev Elkin - Likud), that passed intolaw on Monday, July 11, allows "citizens to bring civil suits againstpersons and organizations that call for economic, cultural or academicboycotts against Israel, Israeli institutions or regions under Israelicontrol."• NGO Monitor is concerned this new law is counterproductive, not themost appropriate framework, and will only polarize importantdiscussions regarding the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS)movement against Israel. The law will not shed light or encourageinformed criticism on the NGOs and their foreign government fundersthat lead most BDS campaigns.• Regarding other legislation in June 2011 dealing with foreigngovernment NGO funding - MK Ofir Akunis's (Likud) bill on limitingforeign government donations to NGOs and MK Faina Kirschenbaum's(Israel Beiteinu) bill to revoke NGO tax-free status on donations fromforeign entities - Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor,stated, "However, the answer to this challenge [NGO use of foreigngovernment funding] is not to curtail NGOs' freedom ofexpression...Israel's vibrant democracy does not merely survivecriticism, it thrives and is improved by it, especially when much ofthis 'criticism' can be exposed for what it really is: disingenuousand ideologically motivated propaganda."• In February 2011, the Knesset adopted the NGO Funding TransparencyLaw (MK Ze'ev Elkin - Likud). The objective of this law is to provideIsraeli democracy and civil society with the information necessary toassess the extent and impact of secret foreign government funding fora narrow group of political advocacy NGOs, some of which promoteboycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Many of theNGOs that referred to the anti-boycott law as anti-democratic used thesame language regarding the NGO Transparency Law.• Both the secrecy of these funding procedures and the manipulation ofcivil society by external groups and governments violate the acceptednorms and practices among sovereign democratic nations.• There is deep concern among Israel's democratically electedrepresentatives regarding foreign government funding of politicaladvocacy NGOs that are centrally involved in delegitimizationcampaigns. This concern is also reflected consistently in publicopinion polls.The "Anti-Boycott Law," and other legislation regarding foreigngovernment funding of NGOs, is a response to the absence of basicpolicy changes among the European governments that are responsible forsupporting the BDS movement.

The morning after the Boycott Law was passed, we woke up to a slew ofheartfelt leftist protests: "Debate is being stifled," "McCarthyism,""thought police," "the end of democracy."

For a moment, the malicious impression created here was that theKnesset passed a law that would sentence any citizen endorsing theland-for-peace formula to a life term with hard labor.

That's nonsense, of course. Nobody is silencing leftists, and there isno rightist McCarthyism in Israel; what we have here is merely a campthat never knows how to lose graciously.

Our democracy is stronger than ever and more appreciated than ever.The great world out there barely cares about the new, soft law passedhere the other day. After all, quite a few Western states legislatedsimilar laws not too long ago, at the end of the 20th Century, inorder to fight the Arab boycott against Israel. France, for example,as well as Belgium, Holland, Germany and Luxemburg.

Several years ago, a similar law was passed even in the United States,the crown jewel of global democracy. It is indeed unimaginable thatonly Israel of all countries will be prevented from passing a lawagainst anti-Israel boycotts.

Settlements aren't the focusAs opposed to all the chatter we're hearing, the focus of the new lawis not the settlements, but rather, the state as a whole. Thelegislation's official title is "Law for preventing harm to the Stateof Israel via boycotts." Its second clause, for example, refers tothose who "knowingly issue a public call for boycotting the State ofIsrael." What's anti-democratic about this phrasing?

Isn't it time for Israel to adopt minimal defensive measures againstthe dark forces that scheme to defeat it via economic means, afterlosing hope of doing so through other means?

If a member of the leftist camp doesn't wish to use Jewish olive oilthat was produced in the territories, nobody will force him to do so.When a store offers him occupied mineral water from the Golan Heights,he will be able to say that he prefers water from the kosherdesalination plant in Ashkelon and stay alive.

Knesset Member Ze'ev Elkin's thought police will not be visiting suchpeople at night. It won't be visiting anyone. The new law doesn't turnboycott fans into criminals. It merely grants the State, academicinstitutions and private businesses an opportunity to collectcompensation from professional boycott organizers.

It may not be an ideal law, but imposing a boycott on ideologicalgrounds is not a very impressive act either. Instead of raising a hueand cry, we should wonder how we didn't think about it